With environment envoys from almost 200 countries gathered in Lima to negotiate greenhouse-gas limits, Exxon this week urged governments to heed what it called “this imperative of human progress” when designing climate rules. The chief executive officer of Peabody, the largest U.S. coal producer, was more direct in September, arguing it would be “misguided and anti-poor” to spurn fossil fuels.

“They’ve decided they can be on the side of the angels and still sell a lot of oil and gas,” said Michael Lynch, the president of Winchester, Massachusetts-based Strategic Energy Economic Research. “They’re finding that they can say, ‘This is what’s going to happen, but it’s not all immoral and ugly.’”

Exxon spent years denying the existence of human-made climate change altogether before saying people could adapt to warmer temperatures. Lining up with the bootstrappers of the developing world and calling for a balanced approach is a more subtle stance. It’s also one that may divide governments seeking agreement on how to avert climate change.

Stumbling Block

Tensions between industrialized nations and developing countries have long been a stumbling block in global climate talks. Greenhouse-gas emissions, widely attributed to the burning of fossil fuels, reached an all-time high in 2013 — a record linked directly to rising prosperity in the developing world and all the cars, consumer goods and electricity consumption that accompanies it.

Another point of conflict is that the worst effects of climate change risk are hurting most those who have the least. Crop-ravaging droughts in sub-Saharan Africa, for example, can spark food shortages and civil unrest. Among the countries that face “extreme risks” from climate change, according to the U.K. researcher Maplecroft, are Bangladesh, Sudan, Burundi and Afghanistan.

“The living conditions of the economic and the energy impoverished are startling,” Peabody CEO Greg Boyce said in an interview in October. “I’m not saying that, you know, we’ve got to forget about CO2, that’s never been our starting point. But we are saying that, poverty is the number one human and environmental issue we have today.”

“The best way to reduce carbon and further human development is to accelerate use of today’s advanced coal technologies,” Chris Curran, a Peabody spokesman, said in an e- mail.

A Tough Job

Defending fossil fuels and the billions that flow from them as scientists warn of looming, irreversible damage to the environment has never been easy, and the job is getting harder as governments from Beijing to Washington accept that energy policies need to change.

Resource companies “cannot afford to go on putting their heads in the sand,” said Helen Westropp, global business director at London branding agency Coley Porter Bell. “They could face such a backlash if they’re not careful, not just from customers but from shareholders and governments.”

Previous attempts downplayed the effects, or even the reality, of climate change. Exxon Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson, for example, in 2012 described global warming as “an engineering problem” to which humans would adapt. His predecessor, Lee Raymond, denied climate change existed.

Emerging Economies

“People need to understand the critical role of energy in both developed and emerging economies,” Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers said.

Tillerson’s current approach is mirrored by rival Chevron, whose CEO John Watson in October said he expects almost one-third of the world’s population to switch from burning dung and wood to fossil fuels as they move toward the middle class over the next two decades. Other alternatives would not be affordable, he said. A Chevron spokesman declined to comment beyond Watson’ remarks.

Meanwhile Glencore, the world’s biggest exporter of coal to the power industry, says in its position statement on carbon that climate policy must “balance the social and economic aspirations” of the developing world. Glencore also declined to comment.

Electric Cars

While development is closely linked to increased energy usage, economists, energy experts and environmentalists disagree about whether clean energy alternatives might provide a more climate-friendly route to prosperity. Despite advances in renewable energy and a small but growing fleet of electric cars, large-scale electrification still usually means coal or gas- fired power plants, and mobility depends on the internal combustion engine, just as it did for Europe and North America.

Eighty percent of global energy comes from fossil fuels now, according to the Paris-based International Energy Agency. Demand is set to rise by a quarter through 2030, with most of the increase coming from developing economies.

Wind alone has rapidly grown in the past 10 years, and now represents 62.3 gigawatts (GW) of capacity in the U.S., with another 13 GW under construction. Though this only represents about 5 percent of total U.S. capacity, “it is still causing significant impact on the grid,” said Aaron Anderson of Burns and McDonnell Engineering Company who was a panelist on the Fossil and Renewable Energy Partnerships session at the Renewable Energy World Conference and Expo, North America. This impact is especially relevant in the central U.S., which is home to a significant amount of the nation’s wind capacity.

“This causes several issues,” said Anderson. “For one, if most wind resources are in middle of the U.S., and heavy load demands are more towards the coasts, how do we move energy towards the demand? Also, what about really windy or still days where we see rapid increases and decreases in production?” 

In order to find ways to solve these intermittency issues, Anderson conducted a study on the possibility of co-locating wind with natural gas. Since many natural gas resources are located in the same high-wind regions, it would be a logical fit, said Anderson.

The study looked at a 200-MW wind farm that runs at an average 42.8 percent net capacity factor (NCF). It was co-located with 105-MW natural gas plant, which uses Wartsilla engines that are able to quickly ramp up and down while also maintaining efficiency. The study prioritized the wind turbines as the main energy source, and intermittent gaps were filled using either the natural gas plant or conventional grid power — whichever was cheaper.

Even though gas prices were very low at the time of the study, Anderson found that energy was purchased from the grid three times as often as it was purchased from the natural gas plant. Therefore, large-scale co-located plants are typically not an economically viable option. “We have some cases where it makes sense, but more often than not it doesn’t make a ton of economic sense.”

Anderson said that it would make more sense to address wind variability via the total market area — utilities should look at all viable power sources in the region instead one a single resource. Pairing natural gas and wind may be more economical on a smaller scale — distributed resources could be a perfect fit for this type of hybrid solution.

Storage could also provide an economic solution for some projects, but it is still not financially feasible for larger projects, explained Anderson.

“We have done wind projects with battery backup. It has both very good and very bad aspects,” said Anderson. “The very bad is that it is expensive. The very good is that batteries offer a lot of flexibility, such as frequency voltage and reactive power. But there are still a lot of parts of the country where it is not crucial to meet renewable energy and carbon requirements, so the cost benefit it not there yet.”  

Lead image: Wind and natural gas via Shutterstock

What’s more, no matter how pleased you are with the final results, somebody will inevitably tell you that you are wrong and outline in no uncertain terms the reasons why they or somebody they know should be number one on your list. 

So it is always with a certain degree of apprehension that the A Word About Wind editorial team approaches the momentous task of compiling the annual Top 100 Power People in Wind report, the definitive “who’s who” of senior figures in the wind energy sector.

However any initial feelings of dread are soon eclipsed by excitement as we embark on a permanently fascinating process that helps us track and assess not only the fortunes of the key individuals and businesses driving the growth of the industry, but also the wider market trends and dynamics of the past year.

The speed of change and the movement of individuals within the sector never fails to stagger, while on a broader scale the industry is slowly but surely migrating. In last year’s Top 100 we started to see indications of a subtle shift in influence from the stalwarts of established markets towards the pioneering individuals driving growth in emerging sectors around the globe.

So what have we learned from the 2014 Top 100?

Firstly, it’s clear to see that this migratory trend has continued, and it’s fair to say that this year’s rankings have a more international flavor than ever before. 

While the report continues to be dominated by professionals working in the traditional market hubs of Europe, North America and Asia, where the power still resides, it is inspiring to see greater representation from those working in emerging markets.

In particular, our new entrants this year feature individuals with interests in a diverse range of territories around the globe including Chile, Peru, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Thailand. As changing support mechanisms at home slow down the rate of new construction many investors, developers and manufacturers are putting domestic plans on hold and heading overseas.

Others, meanwhile, are seeking collaboration with international partners to pursue joint ventures that will help them weather turbulent times in the coming years.

And this period of rapid evolution has been reflected in numerous changes to the status quo at the very top.

Last year’s top five of DONG’s Henrik Poulsen, Henrik Stiesdal of Siemens, Torben Möger Pedersen of PensionDanmark , Eddie O’Connor of Mainstream and Christian Rynning-Tønnesen of Statkraft have slipped a total of 73 places between them.

Ignacio Martin of Gamesa is this year’s biggest riser, moving a whopping 47 places up our list as the global presence of the Spanish manufacturer and developer continues to grow.

And forty-four of this year’s Top 100 are completely new to the list, including three of our top five Power People.

Wind is a dynamic business, and this influx illustrates its ongoing capacity for attracting and retaining talented individuals from other sectors.

Yet, despite this readily available pool of talent, it’s evident that the industry needs to do more to attract and retain women in its senior roles. Last year just six women featured in the report, and only eight of this year’s top 100 are women — one of whom makes the top five.

Men continue to occupy the majority of the top positions and if wind really wants to differentiate itself from other sectors as a progressive industry, it needs to take steps towards addressing this gender imbalance.

Ultimately, however, let’s not forget the outstanding work that wind energy professionals throughout the supply chain are doing in the drive towards energy sustainability.

The global political and regulatory landscape continues to change and it’s testament to the superb efforts of these 100 individuals and their industry colleagues that wind energy continues to expand and remains both an exciting investment proposition and a viable part of the global energy mix.

If you’d like to read the full Top 100 Power People in Wind 2014 report, visit www.awordaboutwind.com and sign up for a free one-month trial. The first ten people to sign up then email the team on membership@awordaboutwind.com will receive a copy of the report.

Lead image: Wind turbines via Shutterstock

The Problem

Most wind energy farms in the United States are located in the gusty, high-velocity wind areas of the Midwest. This region benefits tremendously from a bountiful supply of wind energy. Other regions of the country, such as the Southeast, experience lower wind velocities, yet have a high concentration of population. In these regions, there exists a mismatch of clean energy demand and the supply available to address it. Could wind power be as feasible an energy source in the bright, densely-populated Southeast as it is in the gusty, open agricultural area of the Midwest?

Wind measurement processes are complex and dynamic. Further, the high variability of historic wind-velocity records gives a random appearance to the naked eye. Perhaps this explains why scientists and engineers conventionally conceptualize wind velocity as a random process, most effectively modeled with a variety of probabilistic approaches. That randomization comes at a cost: any wind velocity patterns are removed from the data causing it to often fall short of reflecting the complexity of natural behavioral patterns critical to good planning. Just like scrambling the order of dots and dashes in Morse code, the coded message in wind velocity data is lost during randomization. Consequently, it must be restored synthetically in a probabilistic framework by, for example, calculating different sets of wind-velocity frequencies for day and night, winter and summer, and so on.

A New Approach

Nonlinear time dynamic analysis is a recognized empirical method designed by physicists to detect and characterize complex behavioral patterns in dynamic systems. Such techniques are beginning to be used by scientists to analyze climate variability.

Similarly, wind velocity data can be planned. It has a coded message coinciding with heat if scientists, engineers and project planners are willing to interpret it accordingly. In particular, observed wind velocities exhibit systematic temporal behavior that can be used to compute long-term daily wind-power patterns. These patterns can then be matched with daily energy demand patterns. Once detected, behavioral patterns also can be used to make short-term predictions of wind-power supply.

The result is that the coded message in wind-velocity data can be retained, eliminating the vexing problem of how to synthetically restore its natural complexity. Wind project evaluators should initially “let the data speak” regarding whether a conventional probabilistic approach or a nonlinear dynamic approach to wind-power evaluation is best.

Changing an entrenched belief system requires solid data, proven methods and indisputable visualizations. Seeing is believing. The data from this study show predictable wind velocity patterns, but standard graphing techniques lack the ability to adequately representit because the data were spread out over an extended period of time for this research. A static graph also failed to show how the data evolved. With OriginLab’s Origin data analysis and graphing software, the data were displayed in a 3D model and animated by sequential plotting of data points to illustrate the cyclical, periodic patterns of the wind velocity’s systematic orbit. (See video, XXX.)

Adding point after point shows how the research data grow over time. It demonstrates how wind velocities systematically evolve along satellite-like orbit construction. The animated plot visually provides the feeling of the wind increasing in the pattern as it actually occurred, not in a random fashion. With this visualization, the study disrupts conventional beliefs and clearly provides the means to match the predictably cyclical wind velocity patterns with patterns of demand.

Insert video around here somewhere.

This testing was conducted on the proposed Sugarland Wind Project of South Palm Beach, Fla. to determine the extent to which observed periodic, cyclical patterns of wind velocity modeling could be matched with the rise and fall of typical Floridians’ demand throughout the day, month or year. The research was intended to investigate the extent to which wind power patterns corresponded with energy demand patterns, and thus, compensate for lower mean wind speeds in order to increase the commercial viability of Sugarland Wind.

The project, which was once referred to as “can’t be done,” was found to be feasible due to breakthroughs in turbine technology capable of generating commercially viable power at lower wind speeds and given the presence of a proper supply and demand match.

Observed wind velocities in the project area showed a sequence of non-repeating orbits generated by strong daily and fainter 25-day oscillatory periods. This research found that computed wind power supply patterns generally matched well with peak daily demand in southern Florida’s hot season, thus allowing residents to cool their homes and offices with renewable, clean energy when they needed to. They also matched well with peak morning demand in the cold season. They did not match well, however, with peak evening demand in the cold season, indicating potential need for increased energy storage if wind power is to supply this period more effectively.

What’s Next?

Wind project evaluation must reliably identify supply and demand patterns and determine how well they match. The Sugarland Wind research provides evidence that nonlinear dynamics techniques deserve space in the wind-project evaluator’s toolbox for this purpose.  It found that wind velocities in the project area exhibit satellite-like patterns that do not repeat perfectly, but do repeat in a similar fashion. Both the probabilistic model and the systematic matching model arrive at an outcome that can be correct, but why leave it up to chance if proximity to certainty is available?

Driving commercial wind viability so it can be scheduled and integrated into the power grid predictably creates the feasibility of clean wind power outside of the Midwest and into areas that currently rely heavily on traditional fossil-fuel-based generation. These research and findings are among the first steps in an ongoing process to ignite the growth of wind power around the country and the world.

Ray Huffaker is a professor of Agricultural and Biological Engineering at the University of Florida at Gainesville. Marco Bittelli is an assistant professor of Agro-Environmental Science and Technology at the University of Bologna, Italy. This article reflects research originally presented in “A Nonlinear Dynamics Approach for Incorporating Wind-Speed Patterns into Wind-Power Project Evaluation.

Orlando —

On Monday evening during PennWell’s Annual Awards Gala, Mary Powell was named the POWER-GEN 2014 Woman of the Year. This is the second year that this prestigious award has been given to a highly successful woman who works in the largely male-dominated power industry.

Powell is President and CEO of Green Mountain Power, an electricity utility in the state of Vermont that serves approximately 265,000 residential and business customers. Industry peers nominated Powell for the award, along with about 30 other successful women, during a nomination period that extended from May through August 2014. The PennWell Women in Power committee then selected three finalists out of all of the nominated women and subsequently voted to choose a winner. The other two finalists, who were also present at the Gala, were Diane Drehoff, Director of Maintenance Marketing at Siemens Energy and Colleen Layman, P.E., Associate Vice President and the Resources Business Group Water principal for HDR Inc.

Mary Powell has served as President and CEO for Green Mountain Power since 2008, following seven years as Chief Operating Officer. During her tenure, Mary initiated and implemented a strategic and comprehensive restructuring of the company that dramatically transformed the utility.

Of her early years, Powell said that she “grew up in a theatrical home and went to a specialized high school for the arts.” She credits much of her training in the arts with helping foster the leadership success she has found in her career.

Powell will be giving a keynote speech during the Women in Power luncheon, taking place Tuesday, December 9 from 12:00-1:00.

Hawaiian Electric Industries Inc. has been among the utility owners most vulnerable to challenges casued by distributed solar power, in a state with the most expensive electricity rates in the nation. As customers defect to generating their own electricity from rooftop systems, the utility has said it aims to cut rates by 20 percent over the next 15 years by increasing renewable energy to 65 percent of its electricity mix.

“It makes a lot of sense for NextEra with all the renewables that Hawaiian Electric was going to do,” Tim Winter, an analyst at Gabelli Co. in Rye, New York, said in a telephone interview. NextEra is “the premier renewable energy builder and developer and really good at transmission.”

NextEra Chairman and Chief Executive Officer James Robo said he sees Hawaiian Electric, which serves 95 percent of Hawaii’s population, as a testing ground for the expected transition from fossil-fuels to power generated from the sun and wind.

“You can think about Hawaii as a postcard from the future of what’s going to happen in the electric industry in the United States,” Robo said by phone yesterday. “As renewable generation gets cheaper, as electric storage becomes more efficient and possible, all electric utilities are going to have to face this.”

About 11 percent of Hawaiian Electric customers have rooftop solar systems, the highest penetration in the U.S., according to the Honolulu-based utility owner.

Solar Incentives

Solar electricity, helped by federal and state tax incentives, is already as cheap as utility-supplied power in 10 states including Hawaii, Deutsche Bank AG said in a report published in October.

NextEra can use its expertise in integrating more renewables and transitioning to cleaner fuels while lowering customer bills in Hawaii, Robo said. Hawaii relies on expensive imported oil for its generators. NextEra has experience in weaning its Florida utility, FPL, off the fuel, reducing its reliance by more than 99 percent since 2001, he said yesterday during a conference call with investors.

“Given NextEra’s track record, I would think they would probably increase the operational efficiency of the company, which over the long-term should lead to lower customer bills,” said Paul Patterson, a New York-based analyst for Glenrock Associates LLC.

LNG Imports

NextEra, the nation’s largest buyer of natural gas, can also use its expertise to help Hawaii import liquefied natural gas to burn to make electricity, said Hawaiian Electric Chairman and CEO Constance Lau in a conference call with investors.

“This is a phenomenal opportunity for us to accelerate clean energy here in Hawaii,” Lau said in a telephone interview.

Holders of Hawaiian Electric will receive 0.2413 shares in Juno Beach, Florida-based NextEra plus a 50-cent one-time dividend for each share they own, the companies said yesterday in a joint statement. As part of the deal, Hawaiian Electric will also spin off the parent of American Savings Bank.

Including an $8 a share estimated value for the bank spinoff, the deal values Hawaiian Electric at about $33.50, the companies said during an investor presentation. That gives a total value of about $3.4 billion.

Without the spinoff, the sale values Honolulu-based Hawaiian Electric at $25.69 a share, or $2.6 billion.

Including debt, the total value of the transaction is about $4.3 billion.

Shares Jump

Hawaiian Electric rose 17 percent to $33.00 after the close in trading in New York. NextEra was unchanged at $104.39.

Hawaiian Electric was incorporated in 1891 from a royal charter by King David Kalakaua, before Hawaii became part of the U.S., according to the company’s website.

The deal requires approval from state and federal regulators, in addition to shareholders. It’s expected to be completed within about 12 months. NextEra won’t make any “involuntary workforce reductions” at Hawaiian Electric for at least two years after the close, the companies said.

Citigroup Inc. is serving as financial adviser to NextEra Energy, and Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen Katz is legal counsel. JPMorgan Chase Co. is advising Hawaiian Electric, with Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher Flom LLP as legal counsel.

Lead image: Solar Panels on a Rooftop in Hawaii via Shutterstock

Now that the House of Representatives is considering a three-week extension of the PTC, through the end of 2014, some have gotten confused into thinking that a three-week extension could drive new wind energy development and keep workers on the job. In reality, a three-week extension would be a repeat of 2013, when 30,000 U.S. wind industry workers lost their jobs and there was a 92 percent, or $23 billion, drop off in wind investment because the PTC was not extended until too late.

That confusion has been partially driven by an inexplicable over-estimation, released late Monday night, valuing a three-week PTC extension at $9.576 billion over the next 10 years, or over $900 million per year. That number was subsequently revised on Wednesday to less than $6.4 billion, which is still many times too high. Those valuations are more consistent with what would be a record or near-record year for the U.S. wind industry. That could be in the realm of feasibility if the House were extending the PTC through the end of 2015. However, it is many times too high for the trivially small value provided by the three-week PTC extension being considered by the House.

As Senator Cardin explained on C-SPAN this morning, the tax extenders bill being considered by the U.S. House of Representatives isn’t a «one-year extension, it’s a couple week extension.» Sen. Cardin added, «there’s a better way, it’s called the EXPIRE Act,” referring to the PTC extension through the end of 2015 that the U.S. Senate has proposed. A two-year extension would allow the U.S. wind industry to maintain its manufacturing capacity and continue reducing costs, stimulating tens of billions of dollars per year in private investment.

Why is a three-week PTC extension essentially worthless in driving new projects? AWEA has spoken with the leading construction companies that build wind projects, and they’ve explained that it is virtually impossible for a three-week extension to drive new wind development. There’s simply not enough time for any substantial number of new projects to physically begin construction before the end of the year.

Companies we spoke to explained that all of the following steps must be completed before a wind project can begin construction and qualify for the tax credit. Even if all of these steps were started immediately and ran concurrently and without stop through the upcoming holidays, none would still even be close to completion by the end of the year:

1. Geotechnical analysis of wind plant site: It takes a minimum of 8-12 weeks for geotechnical studies to determine where to best place wind turbines for a project.
2. Wind plant design/engineering: It takes approximately 20 — 25 weeks to draw up the design and engineering plans for a wind project, which must be completed before construction can begin.
3. Pricing and signing contract for wind plant construction: It takes 6-8 weeks for construction companies to obtain and process the information necessary to develop the pricing on a bid to build a wind project, and at least another 2-4 weeks for the wind project owner to review the bids and award the contract after that. Executing the construction contract would then take an additional 3-6 weeks at minimum. In total, this step alone would therefore run at least 11 weeks, and typically closer to 20 weeks. In addition, depending on the specific project and location, there may also be additional time required for obtaining permits for the construction activity, independent engineering review, and additional contract negotiations.

Moreover, there are a limited number of companies with the expertise to conduct any of the above steps, so even if it were feasible to initiate construction on time, there would be insufficient bandwidth for more than a few projects to proceed. Making matters even more difficult is that wind project prospecting and development ground to a halt this year because Congress neglected to extend the PTC before it expired at the end of 2013.

In addition, while projects can also qualify as having started construction by incurring five percent or more of eligible project costs by end of 2014 under the short-term extension moving through Congress, this too is unlikely to drive new development in the next three weeks. While five percent may not sound like a lot of money, in reality, it represents a significant investment and assumption of risk on the part of a project developer, risk and dollars that developers are unlikely to take on for a project without having already lined up a buyer for the power. It would be like you making a non-refundable down payment on a house with no guarantee that you could actually move in — not a financial move many could afford to make.

Practically speaking, the surest way to achieve that five percent level is signing a turbine supply contract, making payments under the contract, and taking delivery of the turbines in relatively short order as required under the IRS rules for starting construction. This means the developer assumes tens or hundreds of millions of dollars of risk and has to pay millions of dollars in order to meet the five percent threshold. Negotiating and signing such complex turbine supply agreements in a matter of days or weeks and paying significant sums of money for the manufacture of such turbines given the aforementioned uncertainty is unlikely.

Because wind development companies require financial certainty that a project will be moving forward before beginning any of these expensive steps, wind development companies would not begin these steps until the Production Tax Credit extension is signed into law. Even if Congress and the White House were to act immediately on the three-week extension being considered by the House, it would take until April at the earliest before a new wind project could begin construction and qualify for the PTC.

No matter how you cut the math, or how hard you work, it is just not possible to cram the 20+ weeks of work necessary to start wind project construction into the three weeks that would be provided by the House bill.

As AWEA CEO Tom Kiernan explained yesterday, “We call on all clean energy supporters in Congress and the White House to work to pass a two-year extension of these critical tax policies. The three-week extension being considered by the House does not provide the certainty and stability needed to keep U.S. factories open and keep workers on the job. And if you think otherwise, try telling that to the American workers who will be laid off starting in January.”

This article was originally published on AWEA’s Into the Wind blog and was republished with permission.